#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

I used to think that putting a financial asset onchain automatically meant making the whole financial process better.

Then I tried looking at it from the perspective of a bank or investment fund.

Imagine putting a bond or fund onchain.

It sounds like the problem is solved.

But then I started wondering:

What if the token is onchain, but the financial process around it still isn't?

The institution still has to decide who can own it, how it can be traded, how payments move, and how settlement remains compliant.

That made me rethink what “tokenization” actually means.

Is tokenizing the asset enough, or should the financial lifecycle move with it too?

That question is what drew me toward Dusk.

What interested me about Dusk Trade was seeing the problem approached from the workflow side, not just the token side.

Dusk is working toward bringing assets such as MMFs, ETFs, bonds and other RWAs into an onchain environment.

The way I now think about tokenization is:

ownership → eligibility → trading → payment → settlement

Maybe the real question isn't:

“How many assets can we put onchain?”

Maybe it's:

“How much of the financial process can actually work there?”

Because if only the representation moves onchain, can we really say the market moved with it?

That distinction is what makes Dusk interesting to me.


What matters most when bringing real-world assets onchain?